Arguments for and Against Breed Specific Laws

The dog bite epidemic is of great concern to humanitarians, the government, the insurance industry, and canine professionals, among others. In addition, the nearly constant reports of pit bulls killing and maiming children is of special interest to the public in general. The issue is whether to ban certain dogs, restrict them, take a different approach, or do nothing at all. There are four main points of view regarding what should be done, discussed in this section.

Argument in favor of doing nothing at all because there supposedly is no problem

Some say, "do nothing at all." Some feel that banning a breed is like human racial discrimination. They feel that dogs attack people who deserve it for one reason or another. They feel that the statistics compiled on dog attacks are inaccurate, and that the press has created the false impression that there is a dog bite problem in the USA. There is no such problem, they say.

Argument against breed specific laws, but conceding that other corrective measures must be taken

A large group of organizations and experts believes, "do nothing to the dogs, but educate dog owners, children and the elderly, enact strong criminal laws prohibiting dangerous behavior on the part of dog owners, and gather more information about the problem."

A respected group of canine professionals took this position in the authoritative paper entitled, A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention. They advocated dealing with the epidemic by instituting a combination of animal control ordinances and educational efforts, as well as more accurate reporting of dog attacks. They opposed breed bans on the ground that any dog could be a bad dog, that it is too difficult to identify breeds like pit bulls, and that people with bad intentions will turn harmless breeds into killer breeds to stay one step ahead of the law.

Other organizations that exist specifically to oppose breed bans and, in particular, pit bull bans, also promote stiff criminal laws against people who abuse dogs or habitually violate the animal control laws. See, for example, the "Three Strikes You're Out" proposal by Animal Farm Foundation, Inc., an organization devoted "to restore the image of the American Pit Bull Terrier, and to protect him from discrimination and cruelty" (the quote is from their home page).

The following points are often contended by those who oppose breed bans:

The USA generally does not favor the restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a few.

Focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

These very breeds as a whole have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming search and rescue dogs, therapy dogs working inside hospitals, herding dogs and family companions for years.

Banning one so-called dangerous breed will merely hasten the upswing in popularity of some other breed that will be used for vicious attacks on people and other animals.

There is no valid reason to deprive animal lovers of their well behaved pets.

The reports and statistics are flawed. Among other things, a dog bite victim is usually unable to identify the breed of dog that bit him or her. Therefore, victims will name the type of dog that currently is on people's minds as being the dangerous dog.

"The strongest connection [i.e., "characteristic" or "sign"] of all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of dog owners. In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog. The junk-yard German shepherd -- which looks as if it would rip your throat out -- and the German shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with different intentions."

Many authorities say, "teach people dog safety, regulate by passing tougher civil and criminal laws, and restrict by keeping certain breeds away from the wrong people, places and situations."

This group agrees with the "community approach" but would go further, eliminating the "one bite rule," requiring insurance as a condition for ownership of certain types of dogs, toughening the dog control laws, criminalizing the failure to stop a dog attack in progress, and keeping dangerous dogs away from the wrong people, places and situations.

It is now abundantly clear that the bigger, more powerful breeds have no purpose or place in crowded urban settings. In states like California, however, it is illegal for cities to regulate dogs in any manner that is specific as to breed. In other words, no city is allowed to make Presa Canarios, Rottweilers or pit bulls "against the law." In fact, cities are not allowed to regulate those dogs in any way whatsoever, unless the regulation applies to all dogs. (See California's prohibition against laws based on breed.)

You might wonder why it is illegal to own a goat or a chicken in a crowded city, but perfectly fine to own a man-eating dog! It makes absolutely no sense. In fact, the laws that makes breed specific legislation illegal are not only illogical, but also hypocritical. The ban against breed specific legislation can hurt dog owners by making it seem legal to own any kind of dog they want, in any setting. Society seems to say to prospective dog owners, "go ahead and get any dog you want." However, if something happens because that dog was inappropriate, then society may put the dog owner in jail -- possibly for life. The prosecution of Knoller and Noel for the horrific mauling of Diane Whipple was a breed specific prosecution. Quite correctly, the prosecutors showed that the breed of dog that killed Whipple was dangerous and totally inappropriate for a crowded apartment building in a crowded city. However, is it fair to keep cities from regulating the kinds of breeds that people keep, and yet allow prosecutors to throw the book at people who keep giant, cattle herding dogs like Presa Canarios in their apartments? If breed specific prosecutions are legal -- and they certainly should be! -- then breed specific regulations also should be legal.

At some point, the laws against breed specific legislation should be repealed or at least revised, so that the bigger, more powerful dogs can, like goats and chickens and a host of entirely benign animals, be banned from or restricted in a reasonable manner. This does not necessarily mean that existing dogs need to be killed, or even that the dangerous breeds need to be entirely eradicated. The new laws should do any or all of the things set forth in Preventing Dog Bites: Keep Certain High-Risk Dogs Away From the Wrong People, Places and Situations.

Argument in support of breed bans

There is a large and growing group that says, "ban pit bulls and their closely related breeds." This group of advocates is diverse and respected, and it even includes Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). They see the pit bull as overly dangerous and overly abused by mankind. The danger of pit bulls and Rottweilers is well established, in that they account for 75% of all reported canine-inflicted human deaths in the past two decades. It is undisputed that pit bulls in particular are the most abused dog in the USA; created for the specific purpose of violence, the dogs are treated cruelly to make them as dangerous as possible, and are routinely abandoned when they are not vicious enough for their evil masters.

The case for banning pit bulls is growing more convincing as each year goes by. As of May 25, 2013, the USA death count from dogs in 2013 is 14. Of these, 13 people were killed by pit bulls. Unlike the breeders of Doberman Pinschers during the 1970's, the proponents of pit bulls are taking no steps to improve the dogs, but are only spreading misinformation about them and about the mutilations and killings that they cause. An article by Colleen Lynn in the Orlando Sentinel convincingly argued that "Banning pit bulls saves lives and protects the innocent."

There are three articles that present very well the argument in support of breed bans. The first is by an attorney who won the famous Denver breed ban case. The City of Denver passed a breed ban against pit bulls which the State of Colorado attempted to overturn. The State lost in court because the City produced the evidence that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. The story of that case, and a review of that evidence, is contained in Nelson K. One City's Experience - Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific Legislation is Justified. Muni Lawyer, July/August 2005, Vol. 46, No. 4.

The second is an article that considered the problem from a humane standpoint. The following rationale for banning pit bulls appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on June 8, 2005. It was written by Ingrid Newkirk, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the author of "Making Kind Choices" (St. Martin's Griffin, 2005).

Controlling an animal as deadly as a weapon-- Ingrid Newkirk

Most people have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any pit bull that comes through the front door doesn't go out the back door alive. From California to New York, many shelters have enacted policies requiring the automatic destruction of the huge and ever-growing number of "pits" they encounter. This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover.

Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very organization that is trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur or frogs for dissection, supports the shelters' pit-bull policy, albeit with reluctance. We further encourage a ban on breeding pit bulls.

The pit bull's ancestor, the Staffordshire terrier, is a human concoction, bred in my native England, I'm ashamed to say, as a weapon. These dogs were designed specifically to fight other animals and kill them, for sport. Hence the barrel chest, the thick hammer-like head, the strong jaws, the perseverance and the stamina. Pits can take down a bull weighing in at over a thousand pounds, so a human being a tenth of that weight can easily be seriously hurt or killed.

Pit bulls are perhaps the most abused dogs on the planet. These days, they are kept for protection by almost every drug dealer and pimp in every major city and beyond. You can drive into any depressed area and see them being used as cheap burglar alarms, wearing heavy logging chains around their necks (they easily break regular collars and harnesses), attached to a stake or metal drum or rundown doghouse without a floor and with holes in the roof. Bored juveniles sic them on cats, neighbors' small dogs and even children.

In the PETA office, we have a file drawer chock-full of accounts of attacks in which these ill-treated dogs with names like "Murder" and "Homicide" have torn the faces and fingers off infants and even police officers trying to serve warrants. Before I co-founded PETA, I served as the chief of animal-disease control and director of the animal shelter in the District of Columbia for many years. Over and over again, I waded into ugly situations and pulled pit bulls from people who beat and starved them, or chained them to metal drums as "guard" dogs, or trained them to attack people and other animals. It is this abuse, and the tragedy that comes from it, that motivates me.

Those who argue against a breeding ban and the shelter euthanasia policy for pit bulls are naive, as shown by the horrifying death of Nicholas Faibish, the San Francisco 12-year-old who was mauled by his family's pit bulls.

Tales like this abound. I have scars on my leg and arm from my own encounter with a pit. Many are loving and will kiss on sight, but many are unpredictable. An unpredictable Chihuahua is one thing, an unpredictable pit another.

People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pit- bull breeding. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note.

The third is an article that presented the issue from the standpoint of "actuarial risk," meaning the risk of serioius harm posed by pit bulls in general. The editor of Animal People, Merritt Clifton, argued that for a number of reasons those who care about dogs need to take action against the continued breeding of pit bulls. See Bring breeders of high-risk dogs to heel, Merritt Clifton, Animal People, Jan-Feb 2004. This article is another convincing analysis of the need to enact breed specific laws that will effectively deal with the broad range of risks posed by pit bulls and their owners.

In June 2013, Chrysler agreed to recall 2.7 million Jeeps because in 14 years there have been at least 37 Jeep accidents that caused at least 51 deaths. Compare those numbers with deaths caused by pit bulls: in 7 years (half the number of years), pit bulls have killed 151 Americans (three times as many as those killed in Jeeps). There are those who believe that it is at least as important to fix the pit bull problem as it is to fix the Jeep problem.

Now, suppose a state enacted a law that prohibited Chrysler from recalling the Jeeps? We would decry such a law, but that is exactly what California and some other jurisdictions did when they prohibited breed specific laws which aimed at pit bulls (i.e., requiring that they be muzzled in public, or banning them entirely). To those who would point out that Jeeps have not been banned, the answer is that they were not banned because they can be fixed -- and so can pit bulls, which also can and should be "fixed" (i.e., neutered).

As journalist Merritt Clifton pointed out in the article cited above, "It is time to stop pretending that all dogs are created equal, and instead take the lead in seeking legislation which recognizes that some breeds are in fact enormously more dangerous than others--just as legislation recognizes that a puma or African lion or even a 20-pound bobcat must be regulated differently from a ten-pound tabby. This is what would be most fair to all dogs and all people who keep dogs."